How HBC’s Surrender of Rupert’s Land Sealed the Fate of Indigenous Peoples in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Structures both enable and constrain what is possible. We use structuration theory to understand how the colonization of Canada was rationalized through shifts in the social structures used to legitimize and enact particular actions by key actors. We trace shifts in the signification and domination structures that guided the relationships between the Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC) and its shareholders, with the British Crown, the Dominion of Canada, and the Indigenous Peoples in Rupert’s Land. Changes in HBC’s business strategy, shifting from a fur trading company bartering with Indigenous Peoples, to a retailer and land developer serving European settlers, were influenced by social structures that legitimated particular courses of action. Specifically, the financialization of HBC ‘assets’ (Rupert’s Land) through the 1863 IFS Prospectus, and subsequent pressures from the new shareholders for the colonization or ‘sale’ of Rupert's Land to the Dominion of Canada. These new capitalist structures of signification and domination persist today, thus complicating the project of Indigenous reconciliation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".